STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT, AND TRACY M. ROBISON, APPELLANTS,
v.
ROBBY K. ROBISON, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The trial court erred in ordering HLA blood testing to determine paternity because the issue of paternity was already settled by the final divorce decree.
Following a divorce, the husband in a child support enforcement action claimed one of the children was not his. Over the wife's objection, the master …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Final Judgment Of Dissolution Of Marriage cases and more on FLexlaw
BARKDULL, Judge.
This is an appeal from a non-final order pursuant to' Rule 9.130(a)(4) of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Appellant appeals an order directing her and her minor child to undergo Human Leukocyte Antigen (HLA) blood testing to determine the paternity of the minor child.
Wife (mother) and husband (father) were divorced in November of 1991. The divorce decree set forth that “... primary physical residence of the minor children born of the marriage ... shall be with the petitioner/mother ... ”. Husband was ordered to pay child support, but he soon fell behind in his payments. Wife, through HRS, brought an enforcement action. During the hearing, before a general master, for enforcement of the support provisions husband stated that one of the children he was compelled to support was not his child. The master recommended, over wife’s objection, and the trial court ordered that wife and child undergo HLA testing to determine paternity of the minor child.
The trial court did not have the power to address the paternity issues raised by husband. The minor child was, during the parties divorce proceedings, determined to have been born of the parties marriage.
“The final judgment of dissolution of marriage is res judicata and, therefore, bars any redetermination of the paternity of the child.” Pelella v. Pelella, 604 So. 2d 14, 15 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); See also Singletary v. Hardemon, 595 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Vereen v. Vereen, 581 So. 2d 1004 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Biddle v. Salozzo, 522 So. 2d 101 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Narcisi v. Brusko, 510 So. 2d 1132 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Decker v. Hunter, 460 So. 2d 1014 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Van Nostrand v. Olivieri, 427 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Johnson v. Johnson, 395 So. 2d 640 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). Accordingly, the order of the lower court compelling appellant and child to undergo HLA testing is reversed.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
D.F. v. Dep't OF Revenue ex rel. L.F., 736 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…. Wade, 536 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Marshall v. Marshall, 386 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). We simply hold that he is barred by res judicata due to the judgment of dissolution. See State, Dep’t of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Robison, 629 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); State, Dep’t of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Wright, 498 So. 2d 1008 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Johnson v. Johnson, 395 So. 2d 640 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). Nothing in Daniel or Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services v. Privette,…
-
DeRICO v. Wilson, 714 So. 2d 623 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…apparently applied the principle that a divorce decree which establishes the paternity of a child is a final determination of paternity and is res judicata in any future proceedings.4 State Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services v. Robison, 629 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); State Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Wright, 498 So. 2d 1008 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). An exception to this rule is when the father is misled into believing that he is the father, and therefore does not challenge p…
-
Parker v. Parker, 916 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…t obligation. However, because he did not present these test results until more than a [*929] year after the dissolution decree, he runs headlong into principles of res judicata. In State, Department. of Health & Rehabilitative Services v. Robison, 629 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), the court held that because the dissolution decree discussed “the minor children born of the marriage,” the attempted re-determination of the paternity of the children was barred on res judicata grounds. Id.; see also Vereen v. V…
Authorities Cited
- Johnson v. Johnson, 395 So. 2d 640 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)
- Van Nostrand v. Nunzio J. Olivieri and Carol A. Olivieri, 427 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- Gerrard v. Baptist Hosp. OF Miami, Inc., 460 So. 2d 1014 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Dorfman v. Schultz, 460 So. 2d 1014 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Vereen v. Vereen, 581 So. 2d 1004 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Narcisi v. Brusko, 510 So. 2d 1132 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- Perillo v. State, 522 So. 2d 101 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- India Singletary & the Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Hardemon, 595 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)
- Pelella v. Pelella, 604 So. 2d 14 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)